Posted on 06/14/2012 7:10:43 PM PDT by djone
"In George Washington’s Military Genius, Gen. Palmer claims that Washington was a masterful strategist who brilliantly adapted to the changing circumstances of the war.
The truth is that George Washington sent three very able British generals back to England, one of which, Gen. Charles Cornwallis, who went on to achieve great success commanding British armies in India.
Washington’s strategy evolved throughout the war according to Gen. Palmer, and Washington’s strategy had four distinct phases. "
(Excerpt) Read more at humanevents.com ...
Finally, when the British had been larger beaten and driven from the American colonies, Washington had perhaps his most difficult task of all in that he had to keep the American military from breaking apart and keeping them prepared for renewed British aggression. Perhaps more importantly, Washington had to prevent the military from violation the right of Congress to govern preserving the civilian control of the military.
Ultimately, Washington’s performance in the war was masterful and fox-like according to Gen. Palmer, and he is one of history’s most overlooked military geniuses"
He had the British not knowing whether to poop or wind their watches.
And the british had been kicking his butt all over New York and New Jersey just a few weeks earlier.
George Washington may have been a military genius, but we had to wait for Mayor Michael Bloomberg to explain the true function of government.
That describes the U.S. Army in WWII.
I wouldn’t really call Trenton a battle — Washington knew the Hessians held with Christmas and acted according. A rather low-blow actually, but thats war I suppose.
Ping
Oh I don’t know. There were lots of difficult troop movements and soldiers killed. The weather was terrible and Washington had to deal with a lousy battlefield performance before this, and many of his troops ended their enlistments at the end of December. If he didn’t do something bold he would have lost colonial support and French interest too.
If we had losses recently like they had back then, CNN would be all over it negatively. These battles used cannons up close and 62 caliber flintlocks. Grape shot and balls caused a lot of damage with no battlefield medics.
The battle of Princeton was more dicey. If they had lost that it would have been all over for the revolution
It was a battle.
BTW there was no evidence the Hessians were 'sleeping off' a bender BTW. That is a myth. They were as prepared for an attack as they could've been.
It’s as simple as this -Washington won, the Brits lost.
After all, the deadliest battles of the war were in town settings rather than open field. Menotomy on the road back from Concord is a good example.
Some people seem to think King George created an army of red-coated automatons which were destroyed by the minutemen who wrote a constitution and lived happily ever after. Its a shame because the actual events are a truly fascinating study.
No argument, sir. But the ultimate issue remains. We won, they lost.
A deeper familiarity of the details results in a stronger appreciation of Washington's performance not only of the battles I first mentioned, but of the first battle of Trenton as well.
Read the dispatches Rall sent prior to the battle. He knew he was left with his arse hanging in the wind and warned his superiors, both British and Hessian. He had even been warned that Washington was planning an attack shortly before he did.
Rall would have been a complete fool to allow his men to tie one on even on Christmas Eve. And he was by all accounts no fool.
Washington knew how to work with what he didn’t have. Understanding his genius first requires the ability to see what he was doing, which most miss, because so much of it was when he didn’t do something, or how he didn’t do it. he wasn’t just fighting the British Army - he was also fighting the Tories in the Colonies, kind of like conservatives having to fight both the Democrats and the RINOs. They’re both on the same side, but taking different appraoches to the battle. If you can’t see the difference, you can’t see how to deal with it. Washington could see it.
Washington was a great leader, the "Indispensible Man," but a military genius? Hmm.
Washington’s genius lay in his strategic vision, not his tactical capabilities. He realized that to win, he only had to survive and keep the army together. It was a successful strategy adopted by the North Vietnamese. Washington knew that between the fence-sitters in America and the disenchanted British politicians and public, the redcoats lost ground every year the war went on. Also, there is a new study of the Brit logistics train that argues it had become over extended and could no longer support the army as it had in 1775-1776.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.